What IS The Latest News On Red Shirts

[drogon]

Pom Michael

 

I shouldn't congratulate you but I do for finding these two.

 

Real pearls...and maybe not that far from reality knowing the greed of some Thais

 

Just that the hilux is worth only 400K (add some gold), why not try to get a Honda city (golden too)

 

 

[acockasian]

What is your problem?

 

So far, in terms of stupid posts, you take the award for the year - although of course there is enough time for others to screw up but I doubt it will be as bad as yours'.

 

You just seem to want to insult or fight with people?

 

Something wrong at home?

 

Sex issues?

 

Constipation?

[shygye]

Do THEY know what they want? It seems many do not really know why they are there.

 

I've heard several people describe that many of the camp's older women being pissed out of their minds most of the time.

 

There was also an article (in Nation?) a while ago about a retired female college professor going in there and talking with some of the Reds. They had no clue about what was really going on.

 

You think the yellow shirts would have any better answers than the red shirts?

[BelgianBoy]

What is your problem?

 

So far, in terms of stupid posts, you take the award for the year - although of course there is enough time for others to screw up but I doubt it will be as bad as yours'.

 

You just seem to want to insult or fight with people?

 

Something wrong at home?

 

Sex issues?

 

Constipation?

*yawn*

just hold a mirror up, will ya ?

[Old Hippie]

And since I want news sources I can trust' date=' I will not. [/quote']

A bit of an oxymoron most of the time. Problem with a lot of media outlets the truth and facts get blurred to provide a "scoop".

 

 

Here is a news flash/brilliant observation, most, if not all news medias have an agenda/bias.

 

[kamui]

And since I want news sources I can trust' date=' I will not. [/quote']

A bit of an oxymoron most of the time. Problem with a lot of media outlets the truth and facts get blurred to provide a "scoop".

 

 

Here is a news flash/brilliant observation, most, if not all news medias have an agenda/bias.

 

All media have an agenda/bias. The question is how far the individual media go for manipulating, bending the facts. Within LOS there does not exist independent media media for the reason known.

 

Nick and some other Farang journalists are probably the only reliable sources...

[Old Hippie]

Do THEY know what they want? It seems many do not really know why they are there.

 

I've heard several people describe that many of the camp's older women being pissed out of their minds most of the time.

 

There was also an article (in Nation?) a while ago about a retired female college professor going in there and talking with some of the Reds. They had no clue about what was really going on.

 

You think the yellow shirts would have any better answers than the red shirts?

 

 

Is there really a difference? Thais seem to think so...so do some expats. My question is to Expats, some of you guys were there under Thaksin or before Thaksin...and you are there now after Thaksin, is or was there really a difference that effected you and your business?

 

I know over the years various regimes have proposed various policies that some considered not in their best interests. So if someone can, please explain the differences to me. Thanks.

[dave32]

Pom, the thing is that they're knowingly putting their life on the line. All rebellions and revolutionary movements always involved mostly the lower classes of society because those are the ones who have nothing to lose, and perhaps a lot to gain if their struggle succeed.

 

My perception of their "plan" is only that: they're willing to fight to death for their cause, with the hope (maybe false) that for each fallen, there will be 100 more rising to carry on the struggle.

 

Kim, if you ever come to LA -- I can personally drive you to several neighborhoods that contain armed groups that are willing to kill or die for their group. Not only are they willing, but they actually do it regularly over minor circumstance.

 

A lot of people want to ascribe some kind of honor to the red-shirts because they are 'willing to die' for the cause. Whereas before I considered myself neutral -- I have developed a distaste for what they're doing and the spiraling decline and violence they are all but forcing on Bangkok.

 

Yeah, Thai politics are corrupt as hell --> I think there is universal consensus on that, but somehow they had been able to prevent it from declining into a state of armed militant factions (vis a vis Yugoslavia in the 90s) offing each other with no compromise. I think the reds are pushing towards a shittier environment for everyone, in search of some asinine utopian victory that doesn't exist. And it's sad.

 

As I commented to OH today (whom I happen to like as a person, but disagree with on this topic) -- there is more than a little irony in a group protesting government corruption being sponsored by one of the most corrupt motherfuckers in Thai history.

 

Here is an excerpt from an email I received today from a good friend. I don't think he'll mind. (And btw, for me the tragedy in this is -- despite how fucking weird it is, Bangkok has a lot of beauty and potential. Don't want to see that flushed down the toilet. Why oh why couldn't these fuckers have occupied some shithole like Pattaya????).

 

excerpt:

 

"I never seen this level of violence & chaos in all my 22 years here,

it's a bit scary what the future will bring. In the past, most protest

where put down very quickly. Protesters never really

fought back with RPGS & Guns.

 

I don't think Thai's have ever really killed each other the way they

have in the past few weeks."

 

And for what???????????

 

It's such bullshit.

[bust]

We are calling for all international media and NGOs to fully research the complex situation in Thailand before making it public and refrain from reporting with bias or with an intension to instill misunderstandings, social rifts or any hatred toward the innocents and our beloved King.

 

CAMPAIGN AGAINST BIASED MEDIA

We are particularly concerned about the media that report from pre-existing judgement and omit to report certain parts that would otherwise fulfill the whole story, thus intentionally leading viewers/readers to form similar prejudgements.

1. CNN

2. BBC

3. The New York Times

4. The Times

5. The Guardian UK

6. Foreign Correspondent

7. ABC (Australia)

8. NPR

9. The Economist

CNN, for example, has focused their reports mainly on the red-shirt protesters' hardship, but neglect entirely the non-Red people physically and verbally assaulted by the so-called peaceful demonstrators. Earlier on, their web reports always ended with a few paragraphs intended to sum up the background to the Thai crisis, but failed miserably, with merely "Redshirt protesters are mainly supporters of Thaksin who they said was ousted undemocratically in a military coup. Thaksin remains hugely popular in rural Thailand." The report clearly has the intention to "lead" readers to think that Thaksin is the victim here and the Redshirts are merely helping out a victim, (thereby making their "act of terror" acceptable?). True, a military coup is surely undemocratic and Thaksin was undeniably a victim, but what about providing the surrounding context as to why the military felt they had no choice but to make such move? Is the Western World that blindly judgemental to always jump into conclusion that a coup is bad so whoever did it is the bad guy and the victim is the good guy? Please note, Thailand is not Myanmar. Each situation is different. Your generalisation has permanently damaged our reputation.

CNN's Bangkok-based Dan Rivers is a clear example of a very ignorant and biased journalist. After many years in Bangkok, he remains aloof as a foreigner who still knows no Thai and makes no effort to learn, or mingle with the locals of all sides in order to provide the best analysis of the situation possible. However, he prefers to dramatise the Thai situation, making up heroes and villains, so that his stories can command people's attention like his other warzone stories. He even wrote an article "Abhisit Too Posh for Thailand?" even before Abhisit took office. That was not journalism, it was simply a prejudgement.

The latest Foreign Correspondent/ABC of Australia's video report on the Thai Monarch's crisis seems like a promising attempt to get into the roots of the problem. But they again, failed to do so and thus fell prey to Thaksin's and the Red leaders' agenda in diverting the attention to the Monarch, not themselves. Succession to the throne and how people feel about the King and the institution are valid points in Thai society, but must never be mixed up in this personal revenge of Thaksin. Good journalism separates issues and investigates point by point, not mixing everything in a salad bowl and then point fingers to who's guilty of the entire salad.

 

CAMPAIGN AGAINST ILL-INFORMED NGOs

1. International Crisis Group

Its "Crisis Risk Alert: Thailand" article has misled readers into thinking that Thailand is a failed state that needs foreign intervention because the government cannot control the situation, failed to negotiate with the protesters and the bad guy who used force against the protesters, while the article fails miserably to elaborate on the Redshirt's "act of terror" that force the government to use force. Furthermore, it also put our beloved King in a rather negative light, saying he's ill and doesn't do anything, and that's why the international community needs to intervene.

[chuckwoww]

Not sure where that came from bust but it seems to contain quite a bit of bias.